CAA to allow Flight Training from Unlicensed Aerodromes
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Downwind
Age: 40
Posts: 332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAA to allow Flight Training from Unlicensed Aerodromes
If this has been posted elsewhere apologies in advance. To me, at first look, this looks like great news. Now coming into longer evenings it looks like schools may soon no longer need to close with the airport or pay hefty hourly rates to keep running, good news for local flying schools, instructors and students!
Letter of Intent - Flight Training at Unlicensed Aerodromes | Consultations and Letters of Intent | CAA
Letter of Intent - Flight Training at Unlicensed Aerodromes | Consultations and Letters of Intent | CAA
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe this was inevitable once the light/sports lobby started pushing hard.
I went to a CAA/DfT presentation 2 years ago, in which the DfT minister said that their research showed that since WW2, they found no instances where an on-airport fire crew had saved a single GA life. (Obviously CAT is different e.g. the Manchester 737 but this was GA). If true, this is quite an eye opener.
Licensing doesn't exist outside the UK, as such.
However, "licensing" seems to have been operated very differently by different airports. I have been to some licensed ones where there is no fire cover as such - it is a rusting land rover parked in a hangar somewhere, with nobody around to drive it. At others, you have a lot more, and one I know of has a massive fire crew despite being 100% GA.
As regards obstacles, the rule change may not make much of a difference because one patently cannot send QXC students in a C152 to a 500m grass strip with 50ft trees at each end
The level of PPL training is not up to that kind of thing; performance planning is generally poorly taught. Training, especially solo flights, will have to go to nice and easy places.
My guess is that some airfields will drop licensing and will carry on as before, saving the fee. One example might be Panshanger. The bigger ones won't be able to because they have AOC ops; an example might be Biggin. A halfway case might be Shoreham, which has always had wild dreams of commercial ops but actually there is very little AOC stuff going on these days.
How much does a small airfield pay the CAA?
I went to a CAA/DfT presentation 2 years ago, in which the DfT minister said that their research showed that since WW2, they found no instances where an on-airport fire crew had saved a single GA life. (Obviously CAT is different e.g. the Manchester 737 but this was GA). If true, this is quite an eye opener.
Licensing doesn't exist outside the UK, as such.
However, "licensing" seems to have been operated very differently by different airports. I have been to some licensed ones where there is no fire cover as such - it is a rusting land rover parked in a hangar somewhere, with nobody around to drive it. At others, you have a lot more, and one I know of has a massive fire crew despite being 100% GA.
As regards obstacles, the rule change may not make much of a difference because one patently cannot send QXC students in a C152 to a 500m grass strip with 50ft trees at each end
The level of PPL training is not up to that kind of thing; performance planning is generally poorly taught. Training, especially solo flights, will have to go to nice and easy places.My guess is that some airfields will drop licensing and will carry on as before, saving the fee. One example might be Panshanger. The bigger ones won't be able to because they have AOC ops; an example might be Biggin. A halfway case might be Shoreham, which has always had wild dreams of commercial ops but actually there is very little AOC stuff going on these days.
How much does a small airfield pay the CAA?
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: York
Age: 68
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HOW MUCH?...........My Airfield pays around £2000 per annum for the license. It's on our notice board.
Granted it's one of the smaller ones with a 800 mtr Grass strip and very little in the way of cuisine, but licensed all the same.
Granted it's one of the smaller ones with a 800 mtr Grass strip and very little in the way of cuisine, but licensed all the same.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Downwind
Age: 40
Posts: 332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry completely misread your question. Loss to the CAA in fees is estimated at £40,000 which is an average of £1000 per aerodrome x 40*
* where they anticipate 40 aerodromes to withdraw their licence.
A handy PDF file detailing possible impacts is on the CAA website on the above link.
* where they anticipate 40 aerodromes to withdraw their licence.
A handy PDF file detailing possible impacts is on the CAA website on the above link.
CAA Aerodrome Standards consider that there are up to 40
aerodromes that may consider becoming unlicensed. Aerodrome
licensing charges vary, but if figure of £1,000 p.a. is assumed,
the loss of revenue to the CAA may be in the region of: £40000
This may also be considered a benefit to the industry, as a
reduction in CAA charges.
aerodromes that may consider becoming unlicensed. Aerodrome
licensing charges vary, but if figure of £1,000 p.a. is assumed,
the loss of revenue to the CAA may be in the region of: £40000
This may also be considered a benefit to the industry, as a
reduction in CAA charges.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Gt. Yarmouth, Norfolk
Age: 68
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As regards obstacles, the rule change may not make much of a difference because one patently cannot send QXC students in a C152 to a 500m grass strip with 50ft trees at each end The level of PPL training is not up to that kind of thing; performance planning is generally poorly taught. Training, especially solo flights, will have to go to nice and easy places.
This proposal is long overdue and places the onus on the airfield operator and the instructer to make a judgment, which is the way it used to be! It is also the way a lot of regulation in the professions is going, with detailed rules being replaced by broad principles which should be followed, leaving more discretion on their implementation to individuals.
This could have a significant positive impact on the cost of training and if they eventually allow PPL training for remuneration without having to have a CPL then this will further improve the situation. Will we see a rear guard action being fought by existing training organisations who will have cause to fear this proposal?!
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: now in Zomerset
Age: 62
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This could have a significant positive impact on the cost of training
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Gt. Yarmouth, Norfolk
Age: 68
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
will make a few organisations fractionally more profitable
Before everyone dashes off looking for grass strips to operate from, bear in mind that, for JAA training, there are still some significant requirements:
The base aerodrome, and any alternative base aerodrome, at which training is being conducted shall meet the following requirements.
(a) Have at least one runway or take-off area that allows training aeroplane to make a normal take-off or landing at the maximum take-off or maximum landing mass authorised, as appropriate:
(i) under calm wind (not more than four knots) conditions and temperatures equal to the mean high temperature for the hottest month of the year in the operating area;
(ii) clearing all obstacles in the take-off flight path by at least 50 feet;
(iii) with the powerplant operation and the landing gear and flap operation (if applicable) recommended by the manufacturer; and
(iv) with a smooth transition from lift-off to the best rate of climb speed without exceptional piloting skills or techniques.
(b) Have a wind direction indicator that is visible at ground level from the ends of each runway.
(c) Have adequate runway lights if used for night training.
(d) Have available a means of air/ground communications acceptable to the Authority.
Combine that with the Code of Practice (yet to be finally published) and the fact that the CAA are about to increase oversight of Registered Facilities and it's apparent that this is not a carte blanche to train anywhere you can find a friendly farmer.
The base aerodrome, and any alternative base aerodrome, at which training is being conducted shall meet the following requirements.
(a) Have at least one runway or take-off area that allows training aeroplane to make a normal take-off or landing at the maximum take-off or maximum landing mass authorised, as appropriate:
(i) under calm wind (not more than four knots) conditions and temperatures equal to the mean high temperature for the hottest month of the year in the operating area;
(ii) clearing all obstacles in the take-off flight path by at least 50 feet;
(iii) with the powerplant operation and the landing gear and flap operation (if applicable) recommended by the manufacturer; and
(iv) with a smooth transition from lift-off to the best rate of climb speed without exceptional piloting skills or techniques.
(b) Have a wind direction indicator that is visible at ground level from the ends of each runway.
(c) Have adequate runway lights if used for night training.
(d) Have available a means of air/ground communications acceptable to the Authority.
Combine that with the Code of Practice (yet to be finally published) and the fact that the CAA are about to increase oversight of Registered Facilities and it's apparent that this is not a carte blanche to train anywhere you can find a friendly farmer.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: York
Age: 53
Posts: 797
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"2k is insignificant"
Might be for you but for some airfields a significant amount of money. Especially when you add in the other costs associated with being licensed eg fire cover.
It then becomes a significant amount especially for places that train less than 20 PPLs a year. And I now of two such places.
Might be for you but for some airfields a significant amount of money. Especially when you add in the other costs associated with being licensed eg fire cover.
It then becomes a significant amount especially for places that train less than 20 PPLs a year. And I now of two such places.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: notts
Posts: 636
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unlicensed Training Airfields
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Having studied the LAASG 'Draft code of Practice' on the face of it no one should think that it is a matter of operating out of anywhere without a care.
There is a continued reference within the document to standards already in place for licensed aerodromes. With regard to provision of Emergency Services, by another example, that section uses such phrases as; 'capable' and 'suitable' and 'sufficient people with the knowledge...'. and 'clearly marked'. Who will be the judge of all this. The revision of CAP428 is to be the guidance.
Unless any organisation wishes to stick its neck on the block it is going to be wise to meet nearly all if not all the current licenced aerodrome standards.
The recommended Minimum Physical Characteristics and also detailed minimum clearances from obstructions are part of the 'code of practice'. Many parts of the code are difficult to seperate from that required of a small licenced aerodrome. To ensure 'duty of care' is achieved satisfactorily the process may also require an expensive qualified survey.
It would seem difficult if not impossible, in my view, to demonstrate to an investigator following an incident why the unlicenced safety management system should be different from that in place for licenced aerodromes close by. The great gain will be to be able to modify the full current requirements to meet the type of operations actually undertaken. That is not the same as saying that training can be undertaken without a care!
Planning Permission will, of course, be required owing to any change of use. That I can assure you will not be easy!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Having studied the LAASG 'Draft code of Practice' on the face of it no one should think that it is a matter of operating out of anywhere without a care.
There is a continued reference within the document to standards already in place for licensed aerodromes. With regard to provision of Emergency Services, by another example, that section uses such phrases as; 'capable' and 'suitable' and 'sufficient people with the knowledge...'. and 'clearly marked'. Who will be the judge of all this. The revision of CAP428 is to be the guidance.
Unless any organisation wishes to stick its neck on the block it is going to be wise to meet nearly all if not all the current licenced aerodrome standards.
The recommended Minimum Physical Characteristics and also detailed minimum clearances from obstructions are part of the 'code of practice'. Many parts of the code are difficult to seperate from that required of a small licenced aerodrome. To ensure 'duty of care' is achieved satisfactorily the process may also require an expensive qualified survey.
It would seem difficult if not impossible, in my view, to demonstrate to an investigator following an incident why the unlicenced safety management system should be different from that in place for licenced aerodromes close by. The great gain will be to be able to modify the full current requirements to meet the type of operations actually undertaken. That is not the same as saying that training can be undertaken without a care!
Planning Permission will, of course, be required owing to any change of use. That I can assure you will not be easy!
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Strathaven Airfield
Posts: 895
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is the news here?
This was a consultation that closed in July 2008 and was meant to change the ANO 2009 Article 208 and Rules of the Air Regulations to allow flight training at unlicensed aerodromes.
We are now in 2010!
Edited to add:
I see from instructor forum it there has been a CAA update and it comes in on 1st April, 2010:
CAA announces go-ahead for flying training from unlicensed aerodromes | CAA Newsroom | CAA
Or see CAA site, under newsroom.
This was a consultation that closed in July 2008 and was meant to change the ANO 2009 Article 208 and Rules of the Air Regulations to allow flight training at unlicensed aerodromes.
We are now in 2010!
Edited to add:
I see from instructor forum it there has been a CAA update and it comes in on 1st April, 2010:
CAA announces go-ahead for flying training from unlicensed aerodromes | CAA Newsroom | CAA
Or see CAA site, under newsroom.
Last edited by xrayalpha; 23rd Feb 2010 at 05:20. Reason: Factual update
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How the hell does Netherthorpe Satisfy that critiria that Billie bob has just posted for the first section?
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Gt. Yarmouth, Norfolk
Age: 68
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having studied the LAASG 'Draft code of Practice' on the face of it no one should think that it is a matter of operating out of anywhere without a care.
It would seem difficult if not impossible, in my view, to demonstrate to an investigator following an incident why the unlicenced safety management system should be different from that in place for licenced aerodromes close by. The great gain will be to be able to modify the full current requirements to meet the type of operations actually undertaken. That is not the same as saying that training can be undertaken without a care
It seems to me that with less regulation goes greater flexibility and less cost. This is what all aspects of GA need. It may not have a dramatic overnight impact but it all helps. It looks like the new LSA standard will further drive down the cost of flying. All moves in the right direction. Don't knock them.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Ireland
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While this is a step forward we may find that many strips will not be suitable for much of current fleet. The microlight fraternity have been used to training out of unlicensed fields and short(ish) strips for years in aircraft with superior performance and are able to do so safely, much of the current fleet wont be able to do so.
The future of GA is the new stuff that has the performance and ability to operate out of the smaller fields, unlicensed or otherwise, and this move will only reinforce that fact. The costs of operating the older stuff coupled with this ruling being implemented will make the Rotax brigade an even more interesting proposition that many pilots will move to, and it will also open up many airfields in the newer stuff that PPL's will inevitably train on. All in all this is a step forward but on the other hand it may be the death knell of some airfields that currently offer training, if they were to loose the revenue that training generates then many may become unsustainable..... swings and roundabouts come to mind.
Jon
The future of GA is the new stuff that has the performance and ability to operate out of the smaller fields, unlicensed or otherwise, and this move will only reinforce that fact. The costs of operating the older stuff coupled with this ruling being implemented will make the Rotax brigade an even more interesting proposition that many pilots will move to, and it will also open up many airfields in the newer stuff that PPL's will inevitably train on. All in all this is a step forward but on the other hand it may be the death knell of some airfields that currently offer training, if they were to loose the revenue that training generates then many may become unsustainable..... swings and roundabouts come to mind.
Jon